... It's easy to be skeptical. Overall, violence in Iraq is still rising, according to a recent Pentagon report. (Sectarian killings sharply decreased when the surge began but are going up again.) After months of a U.S. troop buildup, only 40 percent of Baghdad is secure, according to Gen. Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking U.S. officer in Iraq.

Yet signs exist that the strategy could gain traction. The military's goals are bluntly realistic, unlike the rhetoric in Washington. Being on the ground in Baghdad focuses the mind.

In contrast to U.S. politicians, no one here talks of "victory." Military strategists know there are far too few U.S. boots on the ground. They also know that the ultimate outcome depends on Iraqi leaders and whether they can - or even want to - hold the country together. With that in mind, the short-term U.S. goal is basic.

"We are trying to stem the cycle of violence," says a senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. Petraeus...

If al-Qaeda can be checked, he said, the U.S. might "get out without a major civil war that spills over into the region and without leaving an al-Qaeda safe haven." Iraqis would have an opportunity to make political progress - if they care to seize it.

In other words, this strategy aims to make it possible to draw down U.S. troops without precipitating a worse Iraqi disaster. Unlike past U.S. strategic fantasies, this one at least sounds real.

Tom Odom

06-20-2007, 12:33 PM

In other words, our strategy is that we can somehow get things back almost as good as they were before we invaded the place and call it a win.

Tom

Ken White

06-20-2007, 07:13 PM

the outcome. Hard for either side to truly win in any insurgency and I believe that excessive use of words like "warrior," "heroes," "loss," "defeat," "victory" and "win" as far back as Viet Nam set the media (worldwide) in opposition to all things Military. Their incorrect belief that they helped end that war has led them to think they can do the same thing with this one.

Words are important and their misuse sends a really bad message.

We -- DoD et.al. -- have totally blown it with the media Hyperbole and dumb stunts like the terrible TV Show that was the Lynch rescue coupled with repeated attempts to coverup for goofs (which invariably fail) plus poor performance due to doctrinal and training failures initially and which led, arguably, to the creation of more rather than less Jihadis have made the Viet Nam syndrome worse. It will take a long time to build any rapport or trust between that Armed Forces and anybody's media. Yes, the media and their abysmal lack of knowledge, even ignorance - and not just on things military - venality, shallowness, quest for the sensational and dominance by the entertainment industry) are more at fault but they control the camera...

A good start would be to watch what we say and the words we use. The fortunate thing is that the Administration civilians screwed up so badly that they're taking a lot of heat that should be directed at senior military leadership (particularly those around in the 1975-2000 period like Powell, Clark, Franks and Co.) and DoD has a window to resurrect itself in media eyes to a slight extent.

Whether they're smart enough to do it is another question.

Tacitus

06-20-2007, 08:56 PM

Words are important and their misuse sends a really bad message.

A good start would be to watch what we say and the words we use.

Whether they're smart enough to do it is another question.

Gentlemen,

The President often uses the phrase "victory in Iraq." I've never been clear on what he means by that. Is it a military victory over: the Al Qaeda terrorists, Sunni nationalists, and Shia militias? Bringing down the car bombs and assassinations to a some lower level of political violence? The central government having some level of authority over all of Iraq?

They talk about "democracy" alot, too. Besides merely holding a vote (which looked more like a census to me), I wonder what else would that include.

It does seem like they would jump at the chance to have a kinder, gentler Saddam-lite type character (with some kind of arranged electoral legitimacy) in control of the place. Like Mubarak in Egypt, perhaps. If and this is a very big IF, we could somehow pull something like that out of the hat, would Americans really buy into that as a victory? Would the military for that matter?

There'd be a lot of folks having to swallow alot of words about freedom, democracy, and liberty if a Saddam-lite, who can get the oil fields back up and running, represents victory.

Ken White

06-20-2007, 09:29 PM

no gentleman I... :cool:

More to the point, the Prez is a politician, politicians say a lot of strange, even dumb things -- that's true of all of them, local to national, all parties, worldwide *. My take is he knows no better than to use the "V" word -- and I fault the Armed forces leadership for (a) using the same word and its allies themselves; and (b) not telling him early on to avoid such usage. The critical point on the issue, I guess is that I don't pay much attention to politicians and what they say -- I watch what they do. So far, IMO Bush has done some good and some bad, thus he's like every other President of the 12 I've lived under. He's not as good as Eisenhower or Truman, not as smart and devious as FDR but he's better across the board than Carter, Nixon and Johnson...

Apologies, this is not a domestic political blog and I'm remiss and I digress. Politicans ( * all, as stated above) are best paid little heed, paying attention to what really happens is generally better in my experience.

Bluntly, without total war, there is no 'victory' as most people understand and use the word. If you describe victory as an acceptable political outcome, then victory without total war is achievable. As to what constitutes that 'victory' for GWB, I dunno, you'd have to ask him and I doubt he'd tell you other than in political platitudes. I suspect he'd settle for all the last three items you cite -- the first three are not possible, never were unless we were prepared to kill them all and we were not and are not.

That "Census" apparently produced a Parliament -- we know it's a Parliament because it's fractious. As for what the democracy will include, I suspect and many -- even the pols -- have said that's up to the Iraqis; not our call. Never was (other than in the mind of a few neo con nutrolls).

I doubt that your third paragraph is correct in its presumption; neither of us can speak for all Americans and the Military will do what it's told, they may bitch about it but that's normal, they'll lose no sleep over it. As a personal aside, I suspect many at all ranks would be more than happy to leave under any circumstances, many will object but leave and the majority will shrug and get on with their jobs and life. Pretty much what happened in Korea and Viet Nam, no reason to suspect otherwise today.

Been my observation that Politicians ( * all varieties stated above) frequently have to swallow words about all sorts of things. Who cares? :confused:

Rob Thornton

06-20-2007, 09:43 PM

I think this has to do more with managing public expectations then a change in policy goals.

If you look in the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terror (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9795/national_military_strategic_plan_for_the_war_on_te rrorism.html) it articulates the political ends as "to defeat violent extremism as a threat to our way of life as a free and open society; and to create a global environment inhospitable to violent extremists and all who support them".

If you look at the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html), it lays out the short, medium and long term political objectives which define victory.

If you look at the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/), you'll see how the three are linked.

Ends, Ways, Means

Democratization is not defined as an end, but is expressed as a "way" to achieve the political end. Means might be through Diplomacy, Informational, Military and Economic elements of power. We've been trying to advance/promote democracy (or some form of it) - think of it as the political system we like best - far longer then our involvement in Iraq. You can debate if its practical under the circumstances or not, but in the end, the civilian leadership calls the shot on what is a policy objective, and what is not. Strategists look for how to apply those means provided in ways that make sense.

I think what is in question here is if the civilian leadership is willing to de-link or compromise its political goals/end just to change the means. A Saddam lite might be a short term solution, but I don't think it fits as a long term solution in light of our stated goals. Is it a good idea to consider Iraq outside of the context of GWOT? I guess it depends on how you see it.

You can point to examples of where we have supported dictatorial regimes, or turned a blind eye because of larger threats or the need for a coalition, but almost always you'd find civilian emphasis on the value of reform - and debate about the consequence of doing so. Going for the short term solution in Iraq will have adverse consequences down the road.

My belief is that the conditions have changed. There is no going back. AQ and like organizations will take every concession they are allowed and turn it into a better reason to attack us. They will give no quarter. They will expand into any area and find a reason to align themselves with who they can. Even Iran is finding common ground with Sunni extremists. You can argue that we caused it, or the its a natural extension of the Arab/Israeli problem, or globalization, but there it is. It is not going away of its own accord. It has to be dealt with in terms of its long term origins, and that is a mighty big sandwich - I think its going to be a long war, but I'm not sure I like the alternative either.

I'm not a Neo-Con, but I'm not an apologist either. If anybody has a world changing solution, then lets get them on the Nobel list.

Rob Thornton

06-20-2007, 09:51 PM

Hey Ken,

Bluntly, without total war, there is no 'victory' as most people understand and use the word. If you describe victory as an acceptable political outcome, then victory without total war is achievable.

Yea - its got unlimited ends but limited means. That is the primary disconnect I think between the National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism and the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism. DoD is charged with the responsibility for lead agency, but is primarliy limited to the authority and means it has at hand. You can read the frustration as it mentions the other elements as being key, but can't really articulate how they will be employed.

That's why guys on the tactical end are just making it work as they go. There is limited OGA presence, because there is limited OGAs. I'm starting to think if we want it, we'll have to grow our own, and come up with work arounds.

Rob Thornton

06-20-2007, 09:59 PM

Maybe we've just misjudged the nature of the war as seen by AQ and the nature of the war as seen by ourselves. If we have not, then we have not articulated it very well, and maybe there is a reason for that too. I don't think Joe at the tactical end has missed the nature of it though - for him, every patrol could be the last.

Tacitus

06-20-2007, 11:59 PM

You must be talking to Tom, no gentleman I:D

Ken White,

Yes, I was reacting to Tom Odom, who wrote, "In other words, our strategy is that we can somehow get things back almost as good as they were before we invaded the place and call it a win."

If we can consider that situation a win, then empowering an Iraqi strongman to rule alongside their parliament might satisfy this definition of victory. Sort of like the role played by the King of Jordan, who seems to have supremacy over their parliament, but there is this facade of democracy in Jordan.

But feel free to sound off, Ken. I enjoy reading your posts!

Ken White

06-21-2007, 12:16 AM

10 characters.

Ken White

06-21-2007, 12:41 AM

on the disconnect and I'm, sadly, totally convinced you're correct on the grow our own. The days of State providing large numbers of FSOs who'll go into the woods with semi-legal boomsticks is, I'm afraid, past. Growing our own is not going to be easy, essentially it would mean pulling out mid peer group CPT after the Advanced Course, sending to get an advanced degree (the carrot) and then to a two year learning tour with State, Ag or whoever and then a three year utilization tour -- and what, if in that time frame, there is not utilization ? Of course, we could develop a warrant officer program (hint, hint, nudge...:wry:...

The kids always make it work; they're never the problem.

I don't think we've misjudged it, there were a lot of folks paying attention the 80s and 90s but that was not a popular bunch of thinking at echelons above reality at that time so they got shunted aside. The Generals did well the charge into Iraq but their replacements from the same relative year groups were confronted with a monster they had not trained for and had vowed (foolishly) would not occur.

I think the lesson in that is that if the Armed Forces want to influence policy, they need to think and produce meaningful options instead of trying to deny a particular problem exists and hoping that would deter commitment to dirty counterinsurgency and nation building. We have got to be a total spectrum force

Really kinda proud of the rapidity with which this monster bureaucracy has turned itself into a thinking machine. I have little use for much of the pre 2003 leadership (and I'm not talking behind anyones back, I didn't make a secret of my thoughts) but the current crop is trying to fix it and I see a lot of good stuff happening. It'll take a while to be embedded and as with any American program, you always have the risk of the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction but on balance I think we're on track. Took less than three years, that beats the seven plus it took in the SEA unpleasantness.

Given the better people, training and equipment today versus my day, as an old retired Colonel buddy said the other day "You can't see those kids on TV and not know their pros." Joe's cool, he'll handle it. He always does.

Tom Odom

06-21-2007, 01:07 AM

Ken,

I don't give politicians a pass because they do not know any better or they cannot chose effective advisors for the simple reason they give the orders. They have an obligation to make informed decisions. Whether they do so or not is a measure that must be applied. Neither do I give a pass to senior military leaders who do not stand up and say so when a stupid idea gets rolling.

What I said here originally with regards to results was said in irony. In 2002 one of those really dumb politicians named Wolfowitz told Congress that ethinic divisions in Iraq were no where nearly as serious as such divisions in the Balkans. He also went on shortly afterward to assure Congress that with Iraq's revenues that a war would pay for itself. Of course he no longer has to bother with the results of that stupidity. The contrast in what the article linked to describes as a strategy for success, victory, or whatever we decide to call it is stark with what Wolfowitz promulgated in 2002, hence the irony.

Best

Tom

Rob Thornton

06-21-2007, 01:25 AM

Gen (ret) Shinseki will be out here on Friday. We'll be on the back row where all good mushrooms and FA 59 majors are at. The AWC is in its distance learning module for the 05s and 06s - so it should be interesting. I don't know what the subject of his talk is yet, but there is a Q&A on the back end. I'm looking forward to hearing him speak.

Ken White

06-21-2007, 04:40 AM

just that I don't pay much attention to what they say other than to compare it to what they do -- then vote and / or work in a campaign accordingly.

Unfortunately, most of my votes and campaign work don't seem to be for an individual but rather to keep what I consider an even worse one out. I am really tired of having to vote for the least bad of a bad lot... :mad:

Wolfotwits is an idiot IMO; he was a lousy appointee and the only good that came of it was that he didn't get to corrupt young minds at Johns Hopkins for a while. Bush was forced by the big donors to take Cheney who insisted on Wolfotwits and Fido Feith, losers both. Those two are the ones that should be looking at 30 months in the slammer, not Libby -- well, other than for his nickname... ;)

Don't think the tenor of my posts indicate that I'm giving anyone a pass; I've just slammed Wolfotwits and Feith, have previously named Powell, Clark, Franks, Sanchez and Miller as not deserving of much respect, said the same thing about the Army senior leadership during the 1975-2005 period and nailed Harkins and Westmoreland. I can add more if you wish, I've got a far longer list including a number of my fellow Sergeants Major and ranging all the way up to O10. I don't include too many pols, they aren't worth talking about... :)

P.S.

Tom did we perhaps get crossways???:confused: Tacitus above used a plural salutation and quoted me, so I responded to him, saying that you were a gentleman and I was not (almost certainly true in both directions). The rest of that comment was directed at him, not you. When I logged on a few minutes ago and read your post above Robs, I though you were chiding me for saying I ignored politicians. On re-reading your comment just now, I'm not exactly sure what you meant -- but I did catch and agree with the irony in the post that started this sub thread???

John T. Fishel

06-21-2007, 11:33 AM

This is NOT to let Wofowitz off the hook, however, he is the only member of the Rumsfeld senior follies to have admitted that he was wrong on anyrhing having to do with Iraq. A couple of years ago he made a presentation at NDU (to the NWC and ICAF class) where he admitted error - I forget the specifics. Rumsfeld, Feith, and Cambone have never publicly said they were wrong about anything in their tenure. So, from here, Wolfowitz gets no pass but he does merit some respect that the others do not.

Tom Odom

06-21-2007, 12:21 PM

Tom did we perhaps get crossways???:confused: Tacitus above used a plural salutation and quoted me, so I responded to him, saying that you were a gentleman and I was not (almost certainly true in both directions). The rest of that comment was directed at him, not you. When I logged on a few minutes ago and read your post above Robs, I though you were chiding me for saying I ignored politicians. On re-reading your comment just now, I'm not exactly sure what you meant -- but I did catch and agree with the irony in the post that started this sub thread???

Nope not cross wise at all, Ken. I enjoy debate as part of discussion. We definitely agree on Wolfie and Feith. Powell I respect tremendously but I was tremendously disappointed by the UN speech and its results.

John T.

I had not heard that Wolfie had done so. He really needs to stand on the steps of the Capitol and repeat that apology. Feith will never apologize and Rumsfeld, well Rumsfeld is Rumsfeld.